My retort, that you quoted, was an attempt to demonstrate that given the available data it is not possible to say with any authority whether Foxconn employees are more or less likely to commit suicide as a direct result of Foxconn's relationship with Apple.

Why would they be allowed to meddle with old business or management of everyday business decisions at Moto when there's realistic chances the purchase won't even happen, needing approval from a lot of different authorities including those in China, Israel, Taiwan, the US and the EU? Think of the possible ramifications from Moto stockholders if Google were to order an end to any actions against Apple but never follows thru with purchasing the company? Or worse, they order Moto to ramp up the lawsuits, then say adios and back out of the deal if the heat from Apple gets too hot. It makes no sense and therefor probably isn't true that Google's calling all the shots.

But if you want to hold on to the teeny tiny possibility that this is all Google's doing, Moto's shareholders are being deceived by the evil Google who is secretly in control and use it to cloud your thinking it's your choice of course.

I have no idea why you continue to argue with me on this matter, and why you persist on holding positions for which you have no facts to back it up.

Neither Google nor Motorola legal teams are idiots. Google's offer and Motorola's acceptance, on this I am quite certain, is not based on a wink and a handshake. Such agreements are both extensive and thoroughly negotiated. Why would you assume the contingencies you argue for are not covered by the agreement? Of course, they are. Google cannot just on a whim decide to not go through with the purchase. They can only do so by reference to negotiated terms outlining the conditions in which withdrawal is allowed.

Google's involvement in these suits involving Apple, based on this agreement, of which we are not privy, are undoubtedly spelled out in this agreement as are Moto's responsibilities. What is fairly clear, or at least presumed, is that Google's purchase of Moto was predicated on Google's use of Moto's patent portfolio to give Google leverage against Apple's and perhaps Oracle's suits against it. As such, Moto's value to Google, and Google's offer and support is likely (and again not being privy to the agreement, I can only surmise), contingent Moto's (successful?) pursuit of claims against Apple. What is also clear is that Google's offer to Moto accounts for the risk Moto's suits against Apple will fail.

My retort, that you quoted, was an attempt to demonstrate that given the available data it is not possible to say with any authority whether Foxconn employees are more or less likely to commit suicide as a direct result of Foxconn's relationship with Apple.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum, and seemingly without any whining.

Unless you have some kind of theoretical argument or a formal statistical test, your use of 'QED' is just puerile.

The bottom line is, there is simply no evidence that suicide rates are higher at Foxconn than in the general Chinese population from which employees are drawn. Which, in turn, is the proximate reason for this entire conversation worldwide. Get with the program and figure out what people are arguing.

You said that the use of suicides to score points was insensitive. I responded that what the original reporters - and their water carriers in Forums like these - did was worse. You have not responded to that.

Guess what? It's typical. Seen it many times before. Don't take it personally.

My retort, that you quoted, was an attempt to demonstrate that given the available data it is not possible to say with any authority whether Foxconn employees are more or less likely to commit suicide as a direct result of Foxconn's relationship with Apple.

I have no idea why you continue to argue with me on this matter, and why you persist on holding positions for which you have no facts to back it up.

Neither Google nor Motorola legal teams are idiots. Google's offer and Motorola's acceptance, on this I am quite certain, is not based on a wink and a handshake. Such agreements are both extensive and thoroughly negotiated. Why would you assume the contingencies you argue for are not covered by the agreement? Of course, they are. Google cannot just on a whim decide to not go through with the purchase. They can only do so by reference to negotiated terms outlining the conditions in which withdrawal is allowed.

Google's involvement in these suits involving Apple, based on this agreement, of which we are not privy, are undoubtedly spelled out in this agreement as are Moto's responsibilities. What is fairly clear, or at least presumed, is that Google's purchase of Moto was predicated on Google's use of Moto's patent portfolio to give Google leverage against Apple's and perhaps Oracle's suits against it. As such, Moto's value to Google, and Google's offer and support is likely (and again not being privy to the agreement, I can only surmise), contingent Moto's (successful?) pursuit of claims against Apple. What is also clear is that Google's offer to Moto accounts for the risk Moto's suits against Apple will fail.

Since I don't understand some of what you just said or what point you're trying to make, you win. I don't have any idea why I would continue to argue with you.

I challenge any liberals whose vocabulary consists of the word "puerile" to refute any of the claims or facts that I've laid out, if they take issue with it. I provide links which clearly lay waste to the absurd and false claims coming from certain people who constantly whine and repeat lies about Apple. Prove me wrong, though I of course won't be holding my breath while waiting for any liberal to prove me wrong.

Sometimes the truth hurts, get used to it. What is truly offensive is people who would exaggerate, lie and spread misinformation, attempting to score a point for their feel good, baloney cause of the week, such as the very low suicide rates amongst a certain group of people, and attempting to somehow smear Apple with that total non-issue.

And when the liberal can't win an argument based on either facts or logic, there's always the old "racism" card which these people can pull out of their pockets. The fact of the matter is that I couldn't care less where these suicides were happening. Suicide is a totally normal thing and it takes place all over the world. No race, color or creed is spared.

How quaint, I am being chided by someone whose signature looks like a 90's Benetton marketing man's wet dream.

The ease with which you exercise hypocrisy is breath taking, to wit you feign being offended by the misappropriation and misuse of suicide rates, before then bragging about how you don't care about the suicided.

Your racism seems to be akin to that of the European colonialists, or slave owners who considered certain other nationalities to be inferior beings, dehumanised chattle. China has a 1.3bn population, Evidently you are labouring under the delusion that those not in the employ of Foxconn are standing in paddy fields.

BTW I take no offence to being called a liberal, largely because I am not sure in which context you are using the term. Do you mean one who believes in freedom from from unrepresentative monarchs (a la the American revolutionists)?

Ahh yes, I see your point. It would be more logical to assume that the least reasonable explanation is most likely the true one.

I'm just speculating on the rest of the speculation out there in the business rags. There's a lot of intrigue about the motivations behind this deal.

There's intrigue about why Google upped their already substantial bid by $3 billion just 8 days after their initial offer was made, all the while there were no other parties interested in Motorola Mobility. There's a lot of intrigue about how Motorola drove the negotiations through Qatalyst and how they negotiated the extraordinary $2.5 billion reverse termination fee plus an additional $1 billion in damages if Google looses interest in the deal. The implication being that Motorola Mobility is taking a huge risk and had something on the table Google was willing to put $3.5 billion up against. And there is also considerable intrigue about the incredible haste in which the deal was made and the so called "astronomical fees" the deal makers have attached to the 8 day deal.

It has been "speculated" that what Motorola had to bargain with was the withdrawal of their lawsuit against Apple. Even if there's truth behind the speculation, it's never going to become public knowledge but it's interesting nonetheless. As I said in my previous post, it's interesting that this letter terminating all licensing with respects to Apple arrives January 11th 2011, just seven days after Motorola split into two companies on January 4th 2011. Sanjay Jha is personally making a cool $66 million out of this deal, and Qatalyst Partners stands to make around $55 million all up, it's hard to say there's not a perception of risk floating around.

I'm just speculating on the rest of the speculation out there in the business rags. There's a lot of intrigue about the motivations behind this deal.

There's intrigue about why Google upped their already substantial bid by $3 billion just 8 days after their initial offer was made, all the while there were no other parties interested in Motorola Mobility. There's a lot of intrigue about how Motorola drove the negotiations through Qatalyst and how they negotiated the extraordinary $2.5 billion reverse termination fee plus an additional $1 billion in damages if Google looses interest in the deal. The implication being that Motorola Mobility is taking a huge risk and had something on the table Google was willing to put $3.5 billion up against. And there is also considerable intrigue about the incredible haste in which the deal was made and the so called "astronomical fees" the deal makers have attached to the 8 day deal.

It has been "speculated" that what Motorola had to bargain with was the withdrawal of their lawsuit against Apple. Even if there's truth behind the speculation, it's never going to become public knowledge but it's interesting nonetheless. As I said in my previous post, it's interesting that this letter terminating all licensing with respects to Apple arrives January 11th 2011, just seven days after Motorola split into two companies on January 4th 2011. Sanjay Jha is personally making a cool $66 million out of this deal, and Qatalyst Partners stands to make around $55 million all up, it's hard to say there's not a perception of risk floating around.

To add to your speculations, there were reports of other interested parties for Moto's patent pool, among them Microsoft. That's been used more often to explain the haste shown in putting the deal together. From appearances Mr. Jha was just looking for the highest bidder, with encouragement (really pressure) from their largest shareholder Mr. Icahn. IMHO Moto was able to bluff Google into a better deal that Moto deserved.

Unless you have some kind of theoretical argument or a formal statistical test, your use of 'QED' is just puerile.

The bottom line is, there is simply no evidence that suicide rates are higher at Foxconn than in the general Chinese population from which employees are drawn. Which, in turn, is the proximate reason for this entire conversation worldwide. Get with the program and figure out what people are arguing.

You said that the use of suicides to score points was insensitive. I responded that what the original reporters - and their water carriers in Forums like these - did was worse. You have not responded to that.

Guess what? It's typical. Seen it many times before. Don't take it personally.

The use of QED is not puerile, it might be pretentious though.

You asked me to demonstrate my point. My point was that I do not know if Foxconn employees are any more likely to commit suicide, I also asserted that no one else here knows either and evidenced that by trying to point out the futility of simply comparing national rates of suicide without taking into account other factors. Ergo the use of QED.

At no point have i suggested that any given firm is responsible for Foxconn staff suicide rate. Nor to the best of my knowledge did I say that "use of suicides to score points was insensitive" . I did however flag comments such as "So a few people committed suicide? Big fucking deal." as being offensive.

I didn't reply to the second paragraph in your earlier post (158) because it was not relevant to anything that I had said (see above).

The bottom line is, there is simply no evidence that suicide rates are higher at Foxconn than in the general Chinese population from which employees are drawn. Which, in turn, is the proximate reason for this entire conversation worldwide. Get with the program and figure out what people are arguing.

The following is not intended to be a slight on you or anyone else

Perhaps it would be more useful to compare suicide rates amongst similar Chinese firms as a starting point. Rather than simply comparing foxconn rates with the national average.

How quaint, I am being chided by someone whose signature looks like a 90's Benetton marketing man's wet dream.

The ease with which you exercise hypocrisy is breath taking, to wit you feign being offended by the misappropriation and misuse of suicide rates, before then bragging about how you don't care about the suicided.

Your racism seems to be akin to that of the European colonialists, or slave owners who considered certain other nationalities to be inferior beings, dehumanised chattle. China has a 1.3bn population, Evidently you are labouring under the delusion that those not in the employ of Foxconn are standing in paddy fields.

BTW I take no offence to being called a liberal, largely because I am not sure in which context you are using the term. Do you mean one who believes in freedom from from unrepresentative monarchs (a la the American revolutionists)?

Actually, Apple ][ is correct and not being racist at all.

I visit China on a regular basis. Many of Foxconn's employees come from the poorer, regional sections that rely heavily on farming. Fields, as he described, are all over the place. Unfortunately, they are easily affected by droughts.

In fact, in the majority of suicide cases throughout all of China, a large portion are caused from separation from family, not working conditions.

Were you not aware of this?

If you're going to call someone a racist, make sure you know what you're talking about, asshole.

Steve Job's vision was so forward thinking that he used to park in disabled spots before he became sick.

Perhaps it would be more useful to compare suicide rates amongst similar Chinese firms as a starting point. Rather than simply comparing foxconn rates with the national average.

Actually, as another member, who is a statistician, pointed out to me, the law of large numbers will take over at this point.

Only if the suicide rate at Foxconn was well above the national average would it be of any concern. When you are talking about a company that employs over 500,000 employees then you can just deduce that if the number of suicides is the same as or below the national average then it is a normal suicide rate and is to be expected.

After reading the various responses to my early post, I have no choice but to conclude this is the biggest group of elite assholes I have ever met. After 18 years of Internet flamefests, that's an achievement.

And we honestly wonder why there are people who want Apple & its supporters to fail.

I second that, especially tallest skill, is he bragging? Well, he shouldn't.

Perhaps it would be more useful to compare suicide rates amongst similar Chinese firms as a starting point. Rather than simply comparing foxconn rates with the national average.

Why not one better: suicide rates among 18 - 30 year old Chinese who have left their villages to move into a city?

Do you have the data? Do you have a point? Indeed, do you even know what the conversation concerning Foxconn suicides is all about? Or, are you simply trivializing the issue of suicide (as you were accusing others of doing) for the sake of silly argumentation and being pretentious (which you admitted to being)?

Actually, as another member, who is a statistician, pointed out to me, the law of large numbers will take over at this point.

Only if the suicide rate at Foxconn was well above the national average would it be of any concern. When you are talking about a company that employs over 500,000 employees then you can just deduce that if the number of suicides is the same as or below the national average then it is a normal suicide rate and is to be expected.

Your statistician friend is exactly right.

hungover makes up for his lack of knowledge of statistics with a bit of Latin, though.

When you are talking about a company that employs over 500,000 employees then you can just deduce that if the number of suicides is the same as or below the national average then it is a normal suicide rate and is to be expected.

Foxconn had 920,000+ employees as of 2010. With all of the new factories they are opening up, it's probably around a million today, if not more.

After reading the various responses to my early post, I have no choice but to conclude this is the biggest group of elite assholes I have ever met.

Why do you think I don't use any other forums? My 9,000 posts has got to be good for *something*...

Seriously though, not sure what happened in your case, we're not all that bad. In fact due to work comittments I always am a bit lost with the insulting, not sure what's been going on.

Suffice to say not all Apple users are the same.

Don't give up, I've specifically asked people like DaHarder, Gatorguy and so on to continue posting about Android/Samsung/Etc to keep us in touch with "the other side". Though I may be rough on those companies (but making sure not to attack those AI users) ~ it's interesting to see their perspective, as will be yours.

Additionally I cited examples that I considered to be inappropriate and or offensive.

I don't understand how you see that as justification for accusing me of cynically exploiting the suicides of Foxconn workers (for some further gain) and then asking me to prove a point about sucide rates that I never made in the first place.

So addressing your point in post 158

"Incidentally, laying the blame for suicides on Foxconn by using false statistics, innuendo, thin lines of reasoning, and conflating Apple with Foxconn in report after report (to drive who knows what political agenda) are perhaps the most cynical and insensitive use of suicides that I have seen."

Again, I ask where I have ever suggested a causal link between Foxconn and Apple?

All I have done is suggest that there is insufficient data/evidence to either confirm or deny any link.

The rest of your criticisms of me there after are moot given than the premise upon which they are based is flawed (with the possible exception of being pretentious, a flaw I had already alluded to).

I visit China on a regular basis. Many of Foxconn's employees come from the poorer, regional sections that rely heavily on farming. Fields, as he described, are all over the place. Unfortunately, they are easily affected by droughts.

In fact, in the majority of suicide cases throughout all of China, a large portion are caused from separation from family, not working conditions.

Were you not aware of this?

If you're going to call someone a racist, make sure you know what you're talking about, asshole.

Not sure I follow your point. You suggest that a large proportion of the majority (?)of suicides are attributable to separation. Are these the people that no longer work in the drought prone fields with their extended family. Do the Foxconn factories suffer drought? So industrialisation is the root cause of suicide?

???

Was this the point that Apple ][ was trying to make when he said he doesn't care a jot about Johnny Foreigner?

Actually, as another member, who is a statistician, pointed out to me, the law of large numbers will take over at this point.

Only if the suicide rate at Foxconn was well above the national average would it be of any concern. When you are talking about a company that employs over 500,000 employees then you can just deduce that if the number of suicides is the same as or below the national average then it is a normal suicide rate and is to be expected.

I would have hoped that your friend would have told you that in isolation, statistics are meaningless.

By way of an example; shark attacks increase as ice cream sales increase.

At no point have I claimed to be a statistician, nor have I claimed to be a sociologist with any special insight into suicide rates.

However, if you force me to continue to examine the question of suicide then I would assume that work conditions/income/living conditions etc are contributory factors. Based on those assumptions I would expect that people reputed to have better working conditions (etc) to be less likely to commit suicide than those seasonally facing hardship as the result of drought, for example. In such a scenario, given the significantly smaller base of workers with "superior conditions", parity with national rates would imply a serious problem.

Now as I keep having to stress I don't know what the rates are for China or Foxconn employees and thus I stress, yet again, that I do not know if Apples relationship with the Chinese economy had had any effect or not.

Questioning the methodology with which one arrives at an answer does not make the questioner an asshole, nor does it trivialise the hardships endured by the unfortunate friends and family of the suicided. Glibly stating that you don't give a sh!te about them does.

What more do you want me to say? I suspect that the majority of my detractors will only be happy if I say that as a direct consequence of Apple, Foxconn employees are better treated than anyone else in China. That is something I am not willing to do unless presented with compelling evidence.

hungover makes up for his lack of knowledge of statistics with a bit of Latin, though.

As an English speaker, I am inclined to use Latin from time to time, English is afterall loosly Romance based. Call me a pedant if you will. Oh hang on that's GREEK in derivation, opps.. does that make me pretentious (Latin orig)?

Would you rather I spoke Nadsat or limited myself to terms such as shucks?

As an English speaker, I am inclined to use Latin from time to time, English is afterall loosly Romance based. Call me a pedant if you will. Oh hang on that's GREEK in derivation, opps.. does that make me pretentious (Latin orig)?

Would you rather I spoke Nadsat or limited myself to terms such as shucks?

I would have hoped that your friend would have told you that in isolation, statistics are meaningless.

By way of an example; shark attacks increase as ice cream sales increase.

At no point have I claimed to be a statistician, nor have I claimed to be a sociologist with any special insight into suicide rates.

However, if you force me to continue to examine the question of suicide then I would assume that work conditions/income/living conditions etc are contributory factors. Based on those assumptions I would expect that people reputed to have better working conditions (etc) to be less likely to commit suicide than those seasonally facing hardship as the result of drought, for example. In such a scenario, given the significantly smaller base of workers with "superior conditions", parity with national rates would imply a serious problem.

Now as I keep having to stress I don't know what the rates are for China or Foxconn employees and thus I stress, yet again, that I do not know if Apples relationship with the Chinese economy had had any effect or not.

Questioning the methodology with which one arrives at an answer does not make the questioner an asshole, nor does it trivialise the hardships endured by the unfortunate friends and family of the suicided. Glibly stating that you don't give a sh!te about them does.

What more do you want me to say? I suspect that the majority of my detractors will only be happy if I say that as a direct consequence of Apple, Foxconn employees are better treated than anyone else in China. That is something I am not willing to do unless presented with compelling evidence.

What a load of waffle. I doubt very much that you care about the workers in China - if you did you would be using your time a lot more fruitfully than spouting off on an apple-centric we forum.

What a load of waffle. I doubt very much that you care about the workers in China - if you did you would be using your time a lot more fruitfully than spouting off on an apple-centric we forum.

Maybe we need a new law similar to Godwins Law.

The Appleinsider law:- as the instances of fandroids being shown to be wrong in any given thread increases, the probability that the suicide rate in factories where Apple products are made being mentioned approaches 1.

Would this be the point that the thread becomes dead?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.